I spent years pretending I was playing it "safe" by sticking in my #corporate jobs, towing the line, and simply agreeing to what I knew were a panoply of awful ideas presented by #MBAs. My job, in essence, was to play pretend with business people so they too could feel creative.

They paid me, and in exchange, they got to come to creative meetings, derail them with awful thoughts that had nothing to do with the work, and we all had to nod and agree with them. They had the money. They could hire and fire. We, the #creatives, were merely the entertainment.

Now, I was never let go. I was never fired (although COMPANIES full of people were around me). So this is not bitterness. This is truth — in #videogames, business people control the direction of every significant title, almost always to the detriment of that title.

#Videogame companies are built to do one of two things: suck in money and explode, or suck in money, somehow make something that makes money, and then be sold. This is widely known to anyone in management — your company has a life-cycle of a couple of years (best case scenario).

But to the creatives and others in the company, it is never pitched this way. It's pitched as, "you won't find any other company like this! We alone have found an evergreen way to make money because we have X on payroll, or Y tech." "We are a family." "This is home."

It is NEVER this to the executives. It is a 2-year pit stop with bonuses on their way to something bigger and better. They pretend the company is eternal, but they know it is merely a distraction, at best. Their eyes are on alliances and deals they can cash in when it explodes.

The higher up you are, the more you cash out when things explode or are sold. And the more likely you are to land in a better situation at a new company, sometimes one spun-up in reaction to the explosion. It is this lillypad jumping that consumes most execs time.

These real facts explain a ton of behavior in videogames that people outside the industry find baffling. WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU DO THAT!? I continuously hear about any number of things and think, wow, it's not at all obvious on the outside, huh?

So, why #crunch? 1)It shaves a huge amount off cost. 2) Workers believe they are somehow buying themselves more runway with it. 3)Execs are terrible at scheduling creatives. 4)Since the company won't be around, and the hire/fire cycles are 2 years, burning bridges doesn't matter.

So, why hire/fire instead of building a deep bench? 1)Companies don't last. 2)Those that do tend to consolidate creatives and executives. Those boosted creatives don't like competition. 3)Creatives that last a long time at a company tend to push for money and recognition.

So, why no unions? 1)Few companies last long enough to even consider it. 2)The average job in VG is something like 1-2 years. 3)When your entire industry is predicated on hiring/firing nearly your entire company every 2 years, there's no one left to carry that cause.

Overall, I've been part of huge successes, moderate failures, and oh-my-god-I-can't-believe-we-didn't-die-releases. The truth is, without the MBAs at the table, it's highly likely the successes would have been more successful, while the failures would all have been killed in dev.